D

D-

F

Character development in this movie was puerile. Again, I must be showing my age but what's with the casual relationship and interactions between the captain and his subordinate officers and crew?

I just wanted to vent and will never post another comment. I joined today just to express my disappointment to people who might understand.

Click to expand...

Don't worry you oldies are not the only ones in this minority group who dislike STID. Being 21 myself I've seen a fair share of Star Trek and STID was the first ST movie which left me disappointed. For me it was the ending, and how it fizzled out, which really did the damage for me.

The transwarp transporter makes starships no more obsolete than the transporter makes shuttles obsolete.

Click to expand...

The transwarp transporter is a bit like the Iconian Gateway. If it can really take objects and people from A to B, in the galaxy, in a blink of an eye then it considerably reduces the purposes of starships.

Click to expand...

How do they know they place they're going isn't just empty space, or how do they know they are materializing in a all or something, or that the place has a atmosphere they can breath, or that it isn't irradiated or something, and most importantly how do they get back since they can't take the transporter with them?

The transwarp transporter makes starships no more obsolete than the transporter makes shuttles obsolete.

Click to expand...

The transwarp transporter is a bit like the Iconian Gateway. If it can really take objects and people from A to B, in the galaxy, in a blink of an eye then it considerably reduces the purposes of starships.

Click to expand...

How do they know they place they're going isn't just empty space, or how do they know they are materializing in a all or something, or that the place has a atmosphere they can breath, or that it isn't irradiated or something, and most importantly how do they get back since they can't take the transporter with them?

Click to expand...

And going back to TNG where there is a similar concept: Maybe multiple or prolonged use fucks your body up. Great if you need to beam in a few done assains or shock troops, but terrible for the long term health of your explorers who use it repeatedly.

The first movie with this new crew was very good and set the stage for a whole new Star Trek.

Click to expand...

Agreed.

With this latest offering they have taken the arguably the best Start Trek movie of all time "Wrath of Khan" and bastardized it! Nothing new and a very poor adaptation of the original.

Click to expand...

It had Khan, and a few nods, but it was hardly an adaptation of TWOK. Not in the least. Alt Universe characters having different experiences resulting in different outcomes - In essence, it's "a whole new Star Trek".

Reversing the characters Kirk for Spock, in one of the most memorable scenes not just in Star Trek history but in cinematic history was a travesty.

Click to expand...

Ummmm... No.

I was embarrassed.

Click to expand...

Really? Embarrassed? 51 years old? Really?

What's with senior star fleet crew not only having a relationship but openly kissing on deck? I must be getting old and presume this sort of rubbish is aimed at a newer generation. I can't believe the new Star Trek viewers are that stupid!

Click to expand...

TOS, Season 1 - Court Martial:

Areel Shaw: Do you think it would cause a complete breakdown of discipline, if a lowly lieutenant kissed a starship captain on the bridge of his ship?Captain James T. Kirk: Let's try.[they kiss]Captain James T. Kirk: See, no change. Discipline goes on.

Or you can go with, "It's a 'whole new Star Trek'."

Character development in this movie was puerile. Again, I must be showing my age but what's with the casual relationship and interactions between the captain and his subordinate officers and crew?

Click to expand...

TOS Season 2 - The Trouble with Tribbles:

Capt. Kirk: Mister Scott. Where - are - the tribbles?Scott: I used the transporter, Captain.Capt. Kirk: You used the transporter?Scott: Aye.Capt. Kirk: Well, where did you transport them?[the others are looking away, trying to appear not involved]Capt. Kirk: Scott, you didn't transport them into space, did you?Scott: Captain Kirk! That'd be inhuman!Capt. Kirk: Well, where are they?Scott: I gave them a very good home, sir.Capt. Kirk: WHERE?Scott: I gave 'em to the Klingons, sir.Capt. Kirk: [whispering] You gave them to the Klingons?Scott: Aye, sir. Before they went into warp, I transported the whole kit 'n' caboodle into their engine room, where they'll be no tribble at all.[Entire Bridge Crew Laughs]

Or - It's "a whole new Star Trek". Either answer works.

I just wanted to vent and will never post another comment. I joined today just to express my disappointment to people who might understand.

I would strongly advise anyone who hasn't done so already to listen to Mission Log's podcast interview and roundtable with Bob Orci.

John and Ken discuss Into Darkness, the 2009 film, and the decisions made writing and making the film as well as the influence TOS, TNG, etc. had on the process. Highly informative stuff that might change your mind about some things.

The podcast can be found on Mission Log's website, Facebook page and on iTunes. It's just under 2 hours, but well worth the listen, especially for those of us so impassioned over Into Darkness (one way or the other.)

The transwarp transporter makes starships no more obsolete than the transporter makes shuttles obsolete.

Click to expand...

The transwarp transporter is a bit like the Iconian Gateway. If it can really take objects and people from A to B, in the galaxy, in a blink of an eye then it considerably reduces the purposes of starships.

Click to expand...

How do they know they place they're going isn't just empty space, or how do they know they are materializing in a all or something, or that the place has a atmosphere they can breath, or that it isn't irradiated or something, and most importantly how do they get back since they can't take the transporter with them?

Not that it was needed, but it'd have been neat if transwarp beaming was mentioned having dangerous effects on humanoid tissue with prolonged use, like the folded-space transporter technology did. Then a possible reason for Khan being able to use it freely, would be due to him being immune to such effects thanks to his augmented Human DNA.

I would strongly advise anyone who hasn't done so already to listen to Mission Log's podcast interview and roundtable with Bob Orci.

John and Ken discuss Into Darkness, the 2009 film, and the decisions made writing and making the film as well as the influence TOS, TNG, etc. had on the process. Highly informative stuff that might change your mind about some things.

The podcast can be found on Mission Log's website, Facebook page and on iTunes. It's just under 2 hours, but well worth the listen, especially for those of us so impassioned over Into Darkness (one way or the other.)

Click to expand...

That was fascinating, thank you!

I like that their Khan placeholder character was codenamed "Robert April" - it explains a lot of the early rumours, as well as why Khan's weapon on Kronos was called "April's gun" in concept art.

Now that I have seen it on Blu-ray I think I can finally make a better assessment, and I give it an A. I'm not sure if I like it better than 2009 or not. Basically, it boils down to this:

Into Darkness was a stronger film overall. A strong message, stronger characterization, stronger emotional resonance and a more interesting story overall. Now that the characters are acquainted with each other, you see them actually relate to each other as a team, and as I've always said, THIS camaraderie is what makes Star Trek. Star Trek lies and stands on character interaction and this movie delivers in spades! The only character I wished they did more with was Chekov, but he was pretty decent too.

On the other hand, ironically enough, 2009 had more pew pew! I really wish we had more action in this movie, as I couldn't get enough of what we already had. Every action scene was exhilarating!

Huh, I guess I do like Into Darkness better overall. So there's that!

Other things I noted:

The death scene was surprisingly less of a direct lift from TWOK than I thought. The script flowed smoothly and naturally, and a person who had not watched TWOK would not feel anything was left out of place. Even Spock's scream felt natural, and definitely more warranted than Kirk's in TWOK.

Quinto and Pine seem to have great chemistry! I grew to really appreciate them as Spock and Kirk.

I'm loving the diverse Enterprise crew! It's almost like I could tell who's on the bridge by the end of the movie and the faces became very recognizable.

Man, the Enterprise is a beautiful ship in HD. I'm loving the shots we got in this outing, definitely more eye candy compared to before.

Carol Marcus is a much better character than I remembered. She's competent, confident and brave. I look forward to her being part of the main crew.

I love the emphasis of Starfleet as explorers. Although that's more of a TNG-era thing than TOS (especially the movies), it's something I always liked about Trek.

The Carol Marcus underwear scene is still totally unnecessary in my opinion, but it stood out much less than I remember. It didn't bother me too much.

Sadly the warp from Kronos to Earth seems to more obviously take just minutes than I remembered. This is fine, since I can come up with some headcanon, but the most obvious interpretation would be that the trip took mere minutes. Still not a dealbreaker.

All in all, a terrific viewing the second time, over an already amazing first viewing. Yeah, I think I can confidently place this as my second favourite Trek film of all. Due to admitted nostalgia lenses, nothing beats Wrath of Khan for me, but in time, this is close.

They even specifically point out in the film that there are in the Neutral Zone, lightyears from the planet. All the maps at Starfleet HQ show the Neutral Zone and Kronos' relative positions, and the planet is much deeper into Klingon space.

We don't know how long the Mudd ship was in warp flight there and back for.
[/LEFT]

They even specifically point out in the film that there are in the Neutral Zone, lightyears from the planet. All the maps at Starfleet HQ show the Neutral Zone and Kronos' relative positions, and the planet is much deeper into Klingon space.

We don't know how long the Mudd ship was in warp flight there and back for.
[/LEFT]

Click to expand...

Hmm very good point. Could you give me a link to these maps? This could solve a lot more questions!

They even specifically point out in the film that there are in the Neutral Zone, lightyears from the planet. All the maps at Starfleet HQ show the Neutral Zone and Kronos' relative positions, and the planet is much deeper into Klingon space.

We don't know how long the Mudd ship was in warp flight there and back for.
[/LEFT]

Click to expand...

Hmm very good point. Could you give me a link to these maps? This could solve a lot more questions!

Click to expand...

The events of the film between the Enterprise's take off and the battle next to the Moon take place within less than a day, Scotty says so. So whatever they did, they got from Earth to the Neutral Zone to Kronos and back to the Neutral Zone and back to Earth in 24 hours.

They even specifically point out in the film that there are in the Neutral Zone, lightyears from the planet. All the maps at Starfleet HQ show the Neutral Zone and Kronos' relative positions, and the planet is much deeper into Klingon space.

We don't know how long the Mudd ship was in warp flight there and back for.
[/LEFT]

Click to expand...

Hmm very good point. Could you give me a link to these maps? This could solve a lot more questions!

Click to expand...

The events of the film between the Enterprise's take off and the battle next to the Moon take place within less than a day, Scotty says so. So whatever they did, they got from Earth to the Neutral Zone to Kronos and back to the Neutral Zone and back to Earth in 24 hours.

They even specifically point out in the film that there are in the Neutral Zone, lightyears from the planet.

Click to expand...

I'm not so sure anymore. We do know they changed plans, though that raises the question of how they were planning on capturing Harrison without a means of hiding their presence such as a cloaking device. They are said to be 20 minutes from their destination when they are stopped, and it is said that this is 20 minutes in enemy space they weren't planning on. How are we to make sense of this? If they're talking about warp speed, and they're planning to sit and wait while the possibly warp-capable Mudd ship goes to Kronos, captures Harrison, and comes back, shouldn't they be talking about a duration of at least 40 minutes + however long it takes to apprehend Harrison? Also, later it is said that the Vengeance pursued them into, as opposed to out of, the Neutral Zone, but I know that can be interpreted in different ways.

All the maps at Starfleet HQ show the Neutral Zone and Kronos' relative positions, and the planet is much deeper into Klingon space.

Click to expand...

There's a map visible in a certain video ( but not really visible in the film itself as far as I know ) which does seem to indicate that Kronos is, as we might expect, not right on the border and thus not accessible from the KNZ at sublight speeds in any reasonable amount of time. I'm just not entirely convinced that the content of the film agrees with that map. Also, I'm just assuming that the most prominent feature in the Klingon-space portion of the map is supposed to be Kronos, but it isn't labeled.

We don't know how long the Mudd ship was in warp flight there and back for.

Click to expand...

Even though it's possible to assume the K'normian ship went to warp in a certain cut, the film seems to imply that the far-off object it's already aiming at when it leaves the Enterprise is Kronos. The background depiction of local space is the same, for example. However, I know this doesn't explain why the Enterprise was umolested by Klingon ships if it was so close to Kronos.

1, They're on the Federation side; either with a toe on the line, oe hugging it close in friendly space

2, they're on the farside of the Zone hugging the Klingon edge of it.

I'm inclined toward Marcus blowing out the engines when they're closer to the farside, but still in the Neutral Zone; close enough not to be "in violation of the treaty" but far enough along it makes more sense to keep going with the mission and make repairs on route. Marcus--as most of his plans seems to be--is likely figuring on Kirk being cocksure and (frankly) stupid enough to continue on with a wounded ship. It works better with his plot to start a war.